Monsanto's Net Profit Up 77%

Jack Kaskey
Bloomberg

Monsanto Co. (MON), the world’s largest seed company, raised its full-year profit forecast and posted third-quarter earnings that topped analysts’ estimates on higher sales of Roundup weed killer and genetically modified seeds.

Net income climbed 77 percent to $680 million, or $1.26 a share, in the three months through May 31, from $384 million, or 70 cents, a year earlier, St. Louis-based Monsanto said today in a statement. That beat the $1.10 average estimate of 17 analysts in a Bloomberg survey.

Profit excluding some items will rise to $2.84 to $2.88 a share in the fiscal year through August, compared with a previous prediction of $2.72 to $2.82. The average estimate of 20 analysts surveyed by Bloomberg was $2.82. Monsanto also said the Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating customer incentives for Roundup.

Read Full Article

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Police arrest 5 more activists for feeding homeless

Mark Schlueb
Orlando Sentinel

Orlando police arrested five more activists from behind a makeshift buffet table at Lake Eola Park on Wednesday evening, bringing to a dozen the number charged in the past week with violating city restrictions on feeding the homeless.

The members of the group Food Not Bombs were ladling out corn on the cob, rice, beans and watermelon to about 35 people when they were handcuffed. About two dozen activists and homeless people booed and chanted "Food is a right, not a privilege" as they were loaded into a waiting police van.

 
Read Full Article

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

New Jersey town cites backyard organic farmer for growing vegetables, demands crops be left unattended to die

Giving away garden vegetables cited as a local crime

Ethan A. Huff
Natural News

Hostility towards individuals who grow food in their suburban or semi-rural backyards appears to be on the rise, this time in the New Jersey township of Chatham. Officials there have twice cited Mike Bucuk, a 24-year-old organic farmer, for the crime of growing vegetables in his backyard and giving the surplus away to his neighbors for free. The town has even ordered Mike to stop attending to his three-acre plot of crops, thanks to a concerted legal effort spawned by a disgruntled neighbor.

It all apparently started when the Bucuk's neighbor Richard Erich Hamlin lodged a complaint with the town, alleging that Mike was operating a commercial farm in his backyard in violation of local zoning ordinances. Even though Mike's "commercial farm" is really nothing more than a backyard organicgarden with a small, moveable greenhouse, the town ultimately ordered that Mike stop cultivating hiscrops until the issue is resolved one way or the other.

The Chicken Underground: Raising fresh food against the law? (Video)

Infowars

Luke Rudkowski, founder of We Are Change and contributor to RT’s Adam Vs. The Man, travels to Georgia where he finds farmers-in-hiding who break the law and risk a $6000 fine for raising backyard chickens.

Reality has been turned on its head under the audacity of state power as the system rubber stamps little-studied genetically modified foods and factory-farm products created by Big Agra while criminalizing gardens, chickens, raw milk and more cultivated by individuals and simple families. For more info, research SB 510 “Food Safety Modernization Bill” and the United Nations’ Agenda 21 accord for sustainable development, meant to reduce development and subject the once free people’s of the world to global governance and bad policy.

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

FDA claims power to seize food without evidence of contamination

Dees Illustration

Rady Ananda, Contributing Writer 
Activist Post

A few hours ago, the Food and Drug Administration declared it no longer needs credible evidence to seize food that may be contaminated. Ignoring the Fourth Amendment entirely, the FDA claims that based on mere suspicion that a food product has been contaminated or mislabeled, and that serious illness or death will result, it can hold the food for 30 days while it then looks for evidence. It claims this power under the Food Safety Modernization Act, which President Monsanto, I mean, Obama, signed in January.

On May 4th, the FDA stated:

Previously, the FDA’s ability to detain food products applied only when the agency had credible evidence that a food product presented was contaminated or mislabeled in a way that presented a threat of serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals.

Beginning July, the FDA will be able to detain food products that it has reason to believe are adulterated or misbranded for up to 30 days, if needed, to ensure they are kept out of the marketplace. The products will be kept out of the marketplace while the agency determines whether an enforcement action such as seizure or federal injunction against distribution of the product in commerce, is necessary.

Credible evidence no longer applies, it seems.

FDA shuts down sprout grower, processor for poor sanitary conditions

Wikimedia Commons image

Carrie Ann Knauer
Carroll County Times

A Mount Airy grower and processor of soybean sprouts has been ordered to shut down after federal agencies found the company was preparing, packing and holding the sprouts in unsanitary conditions.

The production of bean sprouts without adequate sanitation practices in place makes them susceptible to pathogens such as Listeria monocytogenes, salmonella and E. coli, which can cause serious illness in humans, according to the Food and Drug Administration.

The FDA announced Monday that it had entered a consent decree with Vegi-Pak Farm LLC after the company violated the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act by introducing adulterated food into interstate commerce. The products had been sold to markets in Maryland, Virginia and Washington, D.C.

Read Full Article

RELATED ARTICLE:
Raiding and Regulating New Target in War on Drugs: Foodies

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Conflicts of Interest and Personal Agendas at The Heart of Codex Alimentarius Health Tyranny

image source

Brandon Turbeville

Activist Post 

In the last two articles, I have discussed the flawed principles of “risk assessment” techniques when applied to vitamins and minerals, as opposed to the toxic substance the term was intended for. Improper application, nutrient group, as opposed to the nutrient form approach, and lack of acknowledgment of positive effects of nutrients all combine to establish a strong case against “risk assessment” methods. However, there is one more angle to “risk assessment” that must be pointed out in regards to vitamin and mineral supplements -- the establishment of Maximum Permitted Levels.

To further understand the danger of using Risk Assessment to test nutrients, one must understand how the process works. Dr. Rima Laibow gives an excellent synopsis:

First a group of test animals, mice, rats, rabbits, et cetera, are given increasing amounts of the toxin of interest. The dose is increased until half of the animals are dead. The dose at which 50 percent of the test animals die is called the Lethal Dose 50 (LD₅₀). A similar dose is extrapolated for humans.

Next, the other end of the dose spectrum is investigated by giving test animals smaller and smaller doses until no impact can be identified from the dose of the toxin to establish the Maximum Upper Limit (MUL). The MUL is divided by a safety factor, typically 100. The dosage that results is called the Maximum Permissible Upper Limit.[1]

Here of course, the “toxin” being administered is a nutrient -- a vital component of human life. This in itself is a contradiction. Add to that the fact that the Maximum Upper Limit is set at the level where there is no impact, then further reduced by a safety factor division, and you begin to see the purpose of banning nutrients coming to fruition. 

Although the synopsis given above is admittedly a simplistic one, the end result is as described above -- the dosage of the substance being tested is reduced further and further until no impact (positive or negative) is observed, this figure is then divided by another number (depending on the evaluation but usually 100) which results in the Maximum Permissible Upper Limit. Already, at the end of such a procedure, dietary supplements are reduced to a state where they are virtually useless. Yet the insanity does not end there. 


The goal of reducing nutrients to virtually nonexistent levels continues with the creation of Maximum Permitted Levels.  Dr. Rolf Grossklaus, Chairman of the Codex Committee on Foods for Special Dietary Uses (one of the Codex committees that deal with nutrition) and Director of the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment,[2]brought to the committees’ attention what is labeled as the Global Expectable Average Daily Diet.[3] This is essentially what is estimated to be the average diet of all human beings in the world and their nutritional intake as a result of that diet. However, the Global Expectable Average Daily Diet does not take into consideration populations with lower nutritional intake such as Third World countries. It is simply an average that everyone is lumped into.[4] But because populations with very low levels of nutrient intake are not properly included in the estimate, this leaves only those countries where higher levels of nutrient intake exists, falsely providing results that suggest the Global Average Daily Diet is higher than it is.

Essentially, the levels of acceptable nutrient intake will be ratcheted down based on the populations with the highest amounts of nutritional intake. This process removes countries with low level intake of nutrition from the equation, providing Codex with a higher Global Average Daily Diet which it will then use to reduce the levels of vitamins and minerals even further. [5]

This stance is enumerated in the Codex “Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements” when it is stated, “Most people who have access to a balanced diet can usually obtain all the nutrients they require from their normal diet.”[6] Such a statement is laughable to anyone who has studied health and nutrition, because anyone who has done so knows very well that even in the most highly developed countries in the world we do not receive nearly enough nutrients from our daily diet. Yet Codex is working on the supposition that everyone eats the same diet (on average) and that they get all the nutrition they need from it.

Nevertheless, the Global Expectable Average Daily Diet is then used to subtract the amount of nutrition we allegedly receive from our diets from the Maximum Permissible Upper Limit set by Codex. The value that results is the new Maximum Permitted Level,[7]  -- a value that lowers the acceptable level of nutrients even further. As Paul Anthony Taylor illustrates:

If the upper safe level for vitamin B6 is calculated to be 10mg, as recommended by the UK’s Expert Group on Vitamins and Minerals, and the average daily intake of vitamin B6 from food is calculated to be 2.9mg, as was stated to be the case for men in the UK’s National Diet & Nutrition Survey in 2003, then the “maximum permitted level” of vitamin B6 in supplements could potentially be set by regulators at a mere 7.1 mg. [8]

The rationale is that since we are already receiving a certain amount of nutrients from our food, we must take that amount of nutrients into consideration when establishing a “Maximum Permitted Level” for nutrients in general. Hence the lowering of the “safe” levels.

It should be noted that, while the differences between the Upper Safe Levels and Maximum Permitted Levels are slight, they are still important. One of the main and most important differences is the method by which Maximum Permitted Levels are reached with the further lowering of nutritional content using the Global Expectable Average Daily Diet mechanism. But even semantic differences play a role in the reduction of nutrients as the designation of “Maximum Permitted Level” carries with it a more authoritative and restrictive tone, an important aspect when dealing with scientific, legal, and regulatory labeling. MPLs deal with Maximum Permitted Levels, abandoning the cover language of safety guidelines and moving its motives more out in the open.

The process of establishing Maximum Permitted Levels began in 2005 with recommendations made by the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), the first organization to carry out this task. It should also be noted that not only will BfR be instrumental in providing “scientific” information to Codex, but that Dr. Rolf Grossklaus is BfR’s Director. This is the same Dr. Grossklaus that is the chairman of the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses and has become somewhat famous in the health freedom community for his tyrannical methods of conducting meetings,[9] as well as for making the claim that nutrition is only for maintaining health, not for the prevention or treatment of diseases.[10]

Indeed, Dr. Grossklaus was one of the leading scientists of the team that conducted the studies used in BfR's standings.[11] This is particularly concerning in light of the context of the CCNFSDU as Dr. Grossklaus is the man responsible for guiding the Commissions’ position on the safety of these substances. In this instance, the Chairman of the Codex committee requesting an assessment on nutrients is also the Director of the company conducting the assessment, as well as one of the leading scientists in the assessment itself. True science would never allow someone with such a blatant conflict of interest to take part in these studies. This, however, is business as usual with Codex.

But the clearly unscientific manner in which risk assessment is conducted apparently knows no bounds. Dr. Rima Laibow comments on this obvious conflict of interest further by saying:

Dr. Grossklaus uses his position to bludgeon through his own personal agenda and that of the European Union (EU) representative to Codex and CCNFSDU, Mr. Basil Mathioudakis. The two of them confer regularly as if there were no other members present and whatever the antinutrient Dr. Grossklaus and Mr. Mathioudakis agree upon is the 'outcome' of the deliberations. [12]

Dr. Laibow’s assessment is a fairly accurate one. The methods by which Codex reaches its “consensus” are dubious to say the least. In fact, the “consensus” as declared by the CCNFSDU bears little resemblance to any other real consensus being reached on any other board. Scott Tips, who has regularly attended Codex meetings as an observer, elaborates further:

The Chairman was a German, Dr. Rolf Grossklaus, who ran the Codex meetings in an innovative (to me at least) way. After much discussion on a topic, and especially after the German government delegate did not seem to have anything more to say, the chairman would somehow psychically determine that a “consensus” had been reached or not reached by the delegates and the group would move on to the next topic of discussion. I never once saw a vote taken or even the slightest hint of a show of hands; the outcome was all calculated in Dr. Grossklaus’ marvelous brain as he scanned the room and remembered how many had spoken for or against each proposal. Of course, the squeaky wheels counted the most; the silent ones not at all. We Americans, who suffer from this obsessive notion that votes must actually be counted before deciding upon an outcome, might learn much from this economical and quick means of “voting.” In fact, stupid me, why even vote when the chairman could just decide for all of us?[13]

Anyone who has attended these meetings with the expectation of observing some form of democratic input by anyone except the chairman or the EU must have been seriously disappointed. Indeed, this has been the impression of virtually every health freedom advocate that has ever attended these meetings.

Notes:

---

[1] Laibow, Rima. “’Nutraceuticide’ and Codex Alimentarius.” Alternative and Complementary Therapies, October 2005. P. 227

[2]Codex Committee On Nutrition and Foods For Special Dietary Uses.  https://www.ccnfsdu.de/index.php?id=493

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Laibow, Rima. “’Nutraceuticide’ and Codex Alimentarius.” Alternative and Complementary Therapies, October 2005.

[6] “Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements.” Codexalimentarius.net www.codexalimentarius.net/download/standards/.../cxg_055e.pdf

[7] Laibow, Rima. “’Nutraceuticide’ and Codex Alimentarius.” Alternative and Complementary Therapies, October 2005.

[8] Taylor, Paul Anthony. “Nutrient Risk Assessment: What You’re Not Being Told.” http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/features/risk_assessment.html

[9] Tips, Scott C. “Breathe Easier – Codex Adjourns.” Codex Alimentarius: Global Food Imperialism.” Ed. Scott C. Tips. Foundation for Health Research, 2007.

[10] Walter, Suzan. “Important News from Bonn.” Codex Alimentarius: Global Food Imperialism. Ed. Scott C. Tips. FHR. 2007. P.88.

[11] Taylor, Paul Anthony. “Nutrient Risk Assessment: What You’re Not Being Told.” http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/features/risk_assessment.html

[12] Laibow, Rima. “’Nutraceuticide’ and Codex Alimentarius.” Alternative and Complementary Therapies, October 2005.

[13] Tips, Scott C. “Breathe Easier – Codex Adjourns.” Codex Alimentarius: Global Food Imperialism.” Ed. Scott C. Tips. Foundation for Health Research, 2007.

Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Mullins, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor’s Degree from Francis Marion University where he earned the Pee Dee Electric Scholar’s Award as an undergraduate. He has had numerous articles published dealing with a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, and civil liberties. He also the author of Codex Alimentarius - The End of Health Freedom 

Related Articles by Brandon Turbeville:

The History of Health Tyranny

The Health Tyrants
The Structure of Health Tyranny
Globalism, Think Tanks, and "The New World Order"  
The Language of Health Tyranny

The S.510 and Codex Alimentarius Link

The Methods of Health Tyranny

Buy 1 Get 2 Free at Botanic Choice Buy 1 Bottle and Get 2 FREE (select items), plus Free Shipping on $25+ Expires 12/31/2010

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

Live Superfoods It is time to Wake Up! You too, can join the "Global Political Awakening"!

Print this page

Feds order farmer to destroy his own wheat crops: The shocking revelations of Wickard vs Filburn

Dees Illustration

Mike Adams
Natural News

In arguing for S.510, the "Food Safety Modernization Act," there are all sorts of attorneys, legislators and internet commentators who keep claiming, "The government won't try to control the food production of small farms." They say, "Your backyard garden is safe" and that the feds won't come knocking on your door to control your seeds or foods.

As usual, these pushers of Big Government are utterly ignorant of the history in their own country. Because as you'll learn right here, not only CAN the U.S. government control and dictate to single-family farms what they can grow in their own backyards; the government has already blatantly done so!

In this article, I'll share with you the full and true story of how Big Government has already run rampant over the rights of individuals to grow their own food -- I'll even cite the US Supreme Court decision that "legalized" this tyranny. 


How the tyrants came after a farmer named Roscoe Filburn  

It all starts with a farmer named Roscoe Filburn, a modest farmer who grew wheat in his own back yard in order to feed hischickens.

One day, a U.S. government official showed up at his farm. Noting that Filburn was growing a lot of wheat, this government official determined that Filburn was growingtoo much wheat and ordered Filburn todestroy his wheat crops and pay a large fine to the federal government.

The year was 1940, you see. And through a highly protectionist policy, the federal government had decided to artificially drive up the prices of wheat by limiting the amount of wheat that could be grown on any given acre. This is all part of Big Government's "infinite wisdom" of trying to somehow improve prosperity by destroying food and impairing economic productivity. (Be wary any time the government says it's going to "solve problems" for you.)

The federal government, of course, claims authority over all commerce (even when such claims are blatantly in violation of the limitations placed upon government by the Constitution). But Roscoe Filburn wasn't selling his wheat to anyone. Thus, he was not engaged in interstate commerce. He wasn't growing wheat as something to use for commerce at all, in fact. He was simply growing wheat in his back yard and feeding it to his chickens. That's not commerce. That's just growing your own food.

But get this: The government insisted he pay a fine and destroy his wheat, so Filburn took the government to court, arguing that the federal government had no right to tell a man to destroy his food crops just because they wanted to protect some sort of artificially high prices in the wheat market.

This case eventually went to the US Supreme Court. It's now known as Wickard v. Filburn, and it is one of the most famous US Supreme Court decisions ever rendered because it represents a gross expansion of the tyranny of the federal government.

The US Supreme Court sided with government tyranny

The US Supreme Court, you see, ruled that Roscoe Filburn's wheat could be regulated and destroyed by the federal government simply because Roscoe's wheat production might reduce the amount of wheat he bought from other wheat producers and therefore could impact interstate trade.

Now stay with me on this, because this is a really, really important point to understand.

The federal government claimed authority under the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution (Article 1, Section 8), even though the Commerce Clause was originally written primarily to prevent states from erecting tariffs, not to allow the federal government to control interstate trade. But thanks to the twisted interpretation of the government -- and believe me, the government will twist every interpretation it can in an effort to assert more power over the population -- the feds claimed that Filburn's growing of his own wheat effectively reduced interstate commerce in wheat. Therefore, they reasoned, they could regulate his backyard wheat production (and order him to destroy his wheat).

Because of this US Supreme Court decision in 1942, it now means the federal government can order you to halt food production in your own back yard by arguing that when you grow your own food, the amount of food you purchase from other food providers is reduced, meaning that your food production impacts interstate trade and therefore can be fully controlled by the federal government.

In other words, the federal government claims the authority right now -- even without the Food Safety Modernization Act -- to knock on your door and order you at gunpoint to destroy all the food in your garden, your greenhouse or your farm. They can order you to destroy all seeds in your possession and all food harvested from your own garden. And they can do all this with the full protection of U.S. law by simply citing the precedent set in Wickard v. Filburn in 1942 as ruled by the US Supreme Court.

Read Full Article

RELATED ARTICLES:

Food Fascism in The Land of the Free

Independence Criminalized 

Buy 1 Get 2 Free at Botanic Choice Buy 1 Bottle and Get 2 FREE (select items), plus Free Shipping on $25+ Expires 12/31/2010

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

Live Superfoods It is time to Wake Up! You too, can join the "Global Political Awakening"!

Print this page

S.510 “Hitched” A Ride On Massive Budget Bill, 1984 Is Here

image source

The Intel Hub

Democrats passed a massive budget bill late Wednesday night. The bill narrowly passed by a 212-206 vote.

“A widely backed food safety bill is hitching a ride on the legislation. The measure passed the Senate by a 73-25 vote last week but got caught in a snag because it contained revenue provisions that, under the Constitution, must originate in the House.” Yahoo News

That’s right, S.510 has apparently HITCHED a ride on the budget bill that was passed during a late night session. Our food freedom has possibly been destroyed by the lame duck congress and their big agriculture masters.

Our government is attempting to steal away our food freedom!


Natural Solutions Foundation:

Natural Solutions Foundation Was There: We Saw The House Vote 212 to 205 (WITH NOT A SINGLE REPUBLICAN VOTING FOR THE BILL) When the House Shamefully Attached S510′s language to HR 3082.

Why is their act shameful?  Two reasons.  First, the contents of S. 510 is anti-health, anti-supplements, anti-freedom, anti-small business and anti-clean food to say nothing of anti-sense.  Second, the regulatory language of S. 510 should never have been attached to a Continuing Resolution, which is an administrative bill allowing the government of the United States to continue its activities by funding it. 

This tactic shows how desperate the Uber Cartel is to have this measure pass.  Think about that for a moment: apparently it is vitally important to the Uber Cartel, which makes, among other things, drugs, vaccines, agro-chemicals, GMOs and which grows food, to make sure that you do not have the choice to grow or eat clean food.  The reasons for that present themselves quite rapidly, don’t they?  Clean food = bad customers for Big Pharma.  Poisoned food = great customers.  And then there is the subtext of genocide. 

But we are far from finished here.

Here’s what Ralph Fucetola,JD, our Counsel and Trustee, wrote from Washington, where he spent the day, meeting with Ron Paul while he was there, by the way.

Our Next Step is to Continue Inundating the Senate -
1. We agree with Ron Paul (with whom we visited today, that [S510] is very bad legislative practice to combine a controversial regulatory bill with the Continuing Resolution needed to fund government activities. This bill will impact dietary supplements. That is clear from the way the FDA used section 301(11) of the 2007 FDA “enabling act” to outlaw a form of Vitamin B-6, although Congress put a clause in that bill “exempting” DSHEA products.

FDA will use any new food authority to attack supplements and natural remedies.
2. It is unprincipled to push this bill against the clear will of the voters that the Federal govt is too big and must stop over-regulating.
3. A clean Continuing Resolution is needed so that Congress can decide to continue funding at a certain level without muddying the process with extraneous matters.
4. The vote was nearly a pure partisan vote, with no Republicans in favor of this maneuver, and only a few Democrats standing against the lame-duck “leadership.” We will remember!
5. The People will keep a close eye on all GOP Senators and expect them to act from principle and not add this budget-busting bill, with its 4,000 new FDA agents to harass local food production and distribution.
For those of you who didn’t follow the events on Twitter or C-Span, the House lame-duck “leadership” pushed the “Food Safety” Bill, formerly known as S.510 into the “Continuing Resolution” Funding Bill to keep the Federal Govt running for another year, pass this Hot Potato to Senate again. That body could act Thursday, December 9th.
The House vote appears to have been 212 to 205, with no Republicans voting for the bill. The next step is to continue inundating the Senate with voter outrage.

    Please help us stop S.510 as a tack-on via HR 1755 to HR 3082.
1. Take Action NOW for each member of your household to tell your Senators that you STONGLY OPPOSE adopting the language of S. 510 in this or any other amendment or bill:
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=5303
2. Visit http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm, enter your State to find your Senators’ names and phone numbers. CALL THEM!  Yes, the line may be busy.  Keep trying.  Give the person who answers this message:
“I am calling to strongly opposed adopting the language of S. 510, the so-called Food Safety Modernization Act.  This language is currently attached to  ‘CR/Food Safety House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 3082 – Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011/FDA Food Safety Modernization Act’ which has been sent to the Senate.  I urge Senator [name] in the strongest possible terms to vote against this dangerous, unnecessary and expensive amendment and to oppose this language in any bill or amendment.”

The phone lines may be busy.  Keep trying.  This is literally an 11th hour attempt by Big Agribiz to control every bite you eat, and make sure it is to their liking, not yours.

IT IS TIME TO TAKE A STAND!!!!

RELATED ARTICLE:
Endgame Legislation: Lame Duck Session Ushers in Tyranny

Buy 1 Get 2 Free at Botanic Choice Buy 1 Bottle and Get 2 FREE (select items), plus Free Shipping on $25+ Expires 12/31/2010

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

Live Superfoods It is time to Wake Up! You too, can join the "Global Political Awakening"!

Print this page

S. 510 and Codex Alimentarius Link: Tracking, Tracing, and Monitoring Independent Food Production

Regulated out of existence under S. 510

Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post

Being honest, I must confess some slight personal agitation at the thought of writing another article on yet another “food safety” bill making its way through congress with the words “tyranny” and “Codex” written all over it. It seems that every legislative session, we are faced with the prospect of the same food bill cloaked in a different name. Invariably, this bill seeks to corral all food production into the hands of a few major corporations and essentially destroy the ability of the population to feed themselves. Here in late 2010, we have the new version of food imperialism known as S.510, the Food Safety Modernization Act.




While it is true that S.510 contains new and improved tyrannical sections that are unique specifically to it, the truth is that it is merely a repackaging of past bills  (See here and here ) and attempts to control people through food. It is also yet another attempt to implement Codex Alimentarius guidelines under the guise of domestic legislation.




One example of hidden Codex guidelines in the Food Safety Modernization Act are the overly broad provisions regarding “traceability.” The desire for enhanced traceability of food products is sold to the public as a desire to better respond to food-borne illnesses and follow them back to their source. However, as with almost anything that comes out of the mouth of government, there is a more sinister role that traceability programs have to play. 





Essentially, traceability has little to do with food safety in this context. While no one could argue being able to trace food contamination back to the source is a bad thing, the fact is that these mechanisms already exist. Unfortunately, they are generally ignored and unused when it comes to adverse health effects related to food produced by multinational food corporations. While there is always an exception to the rule, it is a fact that international corporations are by far the source of food adulteration more often than small independent farms.




The real reason behind traceability programs lies in the desire to monitor where food is coming from to ensure that, in the future, it only comes from large agribusiness. Hence, the new traceability procedures  involve massive financial, management, and bureaucratic burdens placed on the shoulders of mainly small “food producers.”




It should be pointed out that, while it is true that major corporations will also be burdened with these regulations (unless the Secretary exempts them), it is also true that a company that makes billions in profits can afford to deal with them. Your neighborhood farm down the road simply can’t. 





For all the claims that small independent producers will be exempted, the fact is that the “exemption” is merely semantics. Small independent producers will be held to essentially the same guidelines as Big Agro. This is because, in order to be exempted from the regulations as S.510, they have to submit to similar regulations as the S.510 regulations themselves dictate. As Eric Blair points out in his article Why the Tester Amendment Does NOT Help Small Food Producers Under S.510:





Those [S.510 Tester Amendment Exemption Requirements] bear a striking resemblance to the ‘expensive’ food safety plans outlined in subsection (h) of S.510 that small producers are supposedly exempt from. In other words, they must submit similarly comprehensive plans just to qualify to be exempt from creating them. But it gets worse.
  If Grandma wants to sell her famous raspberry jam at the county fair (within 275 miles of her canning kitchen) she will indeed be a small producer exemptions, but not before she forks over 3 years of financials, documentation of hazard control plans, and local licenses, permits, and inspection reports. She must submit this documentation to the satisfactory approval of the Secretary; and if she fails to do so, the entirety of S.510 can be enforced on her. That’s hardly what I call an exemption.


He goes on to point out that the bill does not explicitly make it illegal to sell food independently produced, but it does make it so cumbersome that small producers will be unable to maintain compliance with the law. 





While one could successfully argue that by forcing independent producers to file information and obtain permits and licenses is in fact making the production of food illegal, there is no doubt that small producers will be forced out of business by the overbearing regulation.




Nevertheless, cumbersome traceability provisions have surfaced before in other areas. In reading the traceability-related sections of S.510, there is a striking similarity between the language of the bill and that of Codex Alimentarius in its own proposed guidelines. 



The HACCP (Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point), a “food safety” methodology used by Codex Alimentarius (and addressed in S.510), plays an important role in the tracking, tracing, and monitoring of food production. Under this system, food business operators (defined so broadly so as to include both big agribusiness and recreational gardeners) are required to “identify any steps in their operations which are critical to the safety of the food; implement effective control procedures at those steps; monitor control procedures to ensure their continuing effectiveness; review control procedures periodically and whenever the operations change.” 

Likewise, in the document entitled, “Recommended International Code of Practice General Principles of Food Hygeine,” Codex states that “Where necessary, appropriate records of processing, production and distribution should be kept and retained for a period that exceeds the shelf-life of the product. Documentation can enhance the credibility and effectiveness of the food safety control mechanism.” Although the language of the bill and the Codex document are not identical in every section, they are similar. Unfortunately, this is all that is needed to initiate the implementation of Codex Alimentarius guidelines in the United States.
 


However, there is yet another danger posed by S.510 in regards to Codex Alimentarius. The fact that this bill provides the FDA, HHS, and even DHS with even more authority over food production, transportation, and consumption should be alarming enough. But because these agencies often respond to policy as much as they do law, the chances of Codex Alimentarius guidelines being implemented domestically rises sharply. This is due to the fact that no congressional approval would be needed to implement them. Simply an executive order or change in policy from the executive branch or even the FDA, HHS, or DHS acting independently would be enough to enact Codex guidelines in the United States. 

Because Codex Alimentarius guidelines are enforced by the WTO, any dispute brought before the WTO and its dispute settlement board could essentially force the United States to buckle under and implement Codex guidelines. With the passage of S.510, the need to gain congressional approval for such a change would be effectively erased. 

Yet while Codex guidelines can be enforced through the WTO in one fell swoop, it is much more likely that they will be implemented by stealth. Introduced gradually and under the cover of domestic legislation, the chance of organized public resistance is greatly reduced. Without a doubt, the majority of Americans have no idea what Codex Alimentarius actually is. In fact, it is an unfortunate reality that the majority of the American public have no idea what S.510 is. Even to the relatively informed individual, the legislation is merely just another government power grab. Little do they know that is a major step forward on the path to a global dictatorship which uses food as a weapon and a means of control. 
 
Those who ridicule activists and opponents of S.510 as paranoid conspiracy theorists march unwittingly down a road which leads directly to just such a global tyranny where food will be most definitely taken – but not for granted. 


Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Mullins, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor’s Degree from Francis Marion University where he earned the Pee Dee Electric Scholar’s Award as an undergraduate. He has had numerous articles published dealing with a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, and civil liberties. He also the author of Codex Alimentarius - The End of Health Freedom 


Recently by Brandon Turbeville:

The History of Health Tyranny

The Health Tyrants
The Structure of Health Tyranny
Globalism, Think Tanks, and "The New World Order"  

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

Live Superfoods It is time to Wake Up! You too, can join the "Global Political Awakening"!

Print this page